Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2003 09:44:45 +0100
From: Mervyn Hartwig <mh-AT-jaspere.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BHA: multi-leveled ontology


Hi Rakesh,

Most of Bhaskar's early and middle works up to and including Plato Etc 
are relevant. Use the indexes under stratification, emergence etc. See 
in particular:

1975            A Realist Theory of Science. Sussex and New Jersey: 
Harvester and Humanities.
1979            The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philosophical Critique 
of the Contemporary Human Sciences. Brighton: Harvester.
1982            Emergence, explanation, and emancipation, in Paul F. 
Secord, ed., Explaining Human Behavior. Consciousness, Human Action and 
Social Structure. Beverly Hills, London and New Delhi: Sage.
1983    Realism, in T. Bottomore, ed., A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. 
Oxford: Blackwell.
1993            Dialectic: the Pulse of Freedom. London and New York: 
Verso.
1994            Plato Etc.: the Problems of Philosophy and their 
Resolution. London and New York: Verso.

A tendency is by no means virtual. It's  real, and though it may not be 
actualized, sustains a concept of natural necessity (so that Marx was 
quite right to speak of 'iron laws'). A very simple example: kittens 
tend to grow into cats, i.e. in virtue of the causal powers they possess 
they will necessarily do so unless prevented (by lack of food or a bus). 
Similarly with the tendency of the rate of profit to fall as theorized 
by Marx. It is necessarily operative in the capitalist mode of 
production and will make its presence felt, but may be offset by 
counter-vailing forces.

Mervyn

In message <p04330100bb36199c6c2e-AT-[64.160.54.115]>, Rakesh Bhandari 
<rakeshb-AT-stanford.edu> writes
>I do peruse the archives of this stimulating list.
>I would appreciate  a reading recommendation or two about the problem
>of
>multi-layered ontologies. Where in Bhaskar's work in this problem
>discussed? Where is there a good Hegelian discussion of the multiple
>layerings of the ontological?
>The query arises out of an attempt to comprehend what kind of
>reality to attribute to  the tendency for the rate of
>profit to fall (as theorized Marx rather than say JS Mill).
>If the tendency is not actualized, does this
>mean it has no reality at all? I'm not happy with attributing
>to the tendency a virtual reality. That is, the replacement of the distinction
>between possibility and reality with one b/t virtuality and actuality does
>not seem to help much.
>I would appreciate it if replies were cc'd to my email address as well
>rakeshb-AT-stanford.edu
>Thanks all for the stimulating discussion.
>Yours, Rakesh Bhandari




     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---